It Didn’t Work (Buckley declares Iraq a failure)

National Review Online ^ | 02/24/06 | William F Buckley Jr

[DoctorMichael]

I would like Bush's plan to succeed! However, the fighting in the last few days does not bode well.

In contrast, for the most part, the Afghanis have embraced our help and there is much less trouble there.

Maybe the Iraqis didn't suffer enough? Maybe they need a bloody 20 year civil war that leaves them prostrate and destitute? Then maybe, they would be less inclined to follow clowns like Mookie and other 'Religion of Peace-nutz', and show less support for certain Jordanian thugs funded by scumbag Saudis and Iranians and their methods?

We seem to be handing them the Future on a plate and for a large part they are biting the hand that is giving it to them.

[poindexter]

Disagree with his points if you want, but leave the childish attacks out of it.

Boy are you in the wrong place! ;-)

[Hardastarboard]

I will say goodbye to this liberal piece of crap website.

Free Republic? How much farther right does it have to be for you to consider it conservative?

[B Knotts]

Not hardly. But ad hominems against him for his age are indicative of the Bush-before-all philosophy held by too many here.

[George - the Other]

"I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes — it is America." The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. "Everything that is going on between Sunni and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America."

Unless history is wrong, Mr. Buckley, people in the Middle East have been waging war on each other for thousands of years.

George

[TradicalRC]

Buckley has a point, but many knew it was a quagmire before we went in. Sad to see how many Bushbots we have on this thread. It is still too early to crow about victory OR defeat, though.

[TradicalRC]

Neocons represent the airheaded girlfriends who stole them off the backs conservative athletes who earned them.

Best analogy I've seen for the neocons.

[KenmcG414]

All the problems this nation endured after the Revolutionary and Civil Wars were not resolved in three years.

[Old Professer]

If you got Him and Jack Palance both trying to give a speech, the audience would be desperatly pushing the fast-forward button.

[billbears]

That's what it is, actually, a big-government spending blunder.

You nailed it. There were a few that did warn what would happen. But we continued to hear the Iraqis 'wanted' democracy. The US media inundated the public with pictures of purple finger after purple finger in what amounted to nothing much more than a sham of an election. Well that is after the excuse of WMDs fell apart.

What will eventually come from Iraq (if it stays in one piece) is a theocracy that will match some of the more ardent theocracies in the region

And now to top it all off, the esteemed William F Buckley is thrown under the bus because he dares to disagree with new 'conservatism'

[kabar]

Buckley has a point, but many knew it was a quagmire before we went in.

Was Normandy or Iwo Jima a "quagmire?" We are fighting AQ in Iraq, the same people who attacked us on 9/11. Why is Iraq a "quagmire" and Afghanistan not?

[Zechariah11]

Buckley's old, the Rolling Stones are old, Hitlery will be too old in 2012, where am I, at FreeAgeist.com?! (You just wait for Ann Coulter, and Michelle Whatsername, and her sister Laura Whatsername to get 'too old'!)

This is the second post I've read of yours today which has me scratching my head and asking "What is his point?" Why would anyone visit that website if you are incomprehensible on this one?

If it is, don't criticise old people say so. But the Stones are awful has-beens who should be criticised; Hillary is persona-non-grata, young or old; and many old-sters apostasize from earlier cherished beliefs -- as true in politics as religion.

[kabar]

The US media inundated the public with pictures of purple finger after purple finger in what amounted to nothing much more than a sham of an election. Well that is after the excuse of WMDs fell apart.

Those were not "sham" elections based on independent observers, including the UN. Over 8 million Iraqis participated under the threat of life and death violence. I suggest you read the Text of Joint Resolution On Iraq Passed By The United States Congress on October 10 and 11, 2002 to see why we invaded Iraq. It was much more than WMD.

What will eventually come from Iraq (if it stays in one piece) is a theocracy that will match some of the more ardent theocracies in the region

Pure conjecture on your part and ill-informed at that. There is only one "ardent" theocracy in the region and that is Iran.

[bnelson44]

And when it got tough, we had people giving up then as well.

[Zechariah11]

The same edition of the paper (NY Times) quotes a fellow . . .

A reliable and impartial source for all things involving Iraq, Bill.

You might next try, High Times to buttress your "We've lost the War on Drugs!!!" argument.

[billbears]

3rd, 4th, and 5th paragraphs

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in 'material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President 'to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations' (Public Law 105-235);

And for close to two years, Republicans harped on WMDs with very few words on democracy. That was the reason. How many would have been behind 'regime change' in Iraq simply for 'freeing' the Iraqi people? There was a supposed threat, which didn't exist.

Pure conjecture on your part and ill-informed at that

Ah, yes. And you would know how? You yourself stated you had never been to Iraq. It's not ill-informed, it's based on historical data of past regimes within the region, unlike Victor David Hansen's delusional rantings. Buckley is right again, as he usually is. Within a generation, Iraq may not be a theocracy. But I can guarantee you it will no longer be a democracy, no matter how many Republicans close their eyes and wish it to be.

[jeremiah]

On the lead-up to war, the Turks said they would not allow the Kurds to have their own country. When that happened, I figured the plan would fall apart sooner or later. We are trying to meld three countries into one, with the glue being love of freedom. These people have no room in their lives for that, they have been, and are, too busy fighting amongst themselves. Make a Kurdish country, Shiite and Sunni ones too. Let them fight or not.

I am in no position to call the war won or lost, but the problem was/is, too weak of a response to violence. We should have leveled the Sunni triangle, gave field commanders, power to execute prisoners picked up in the aftermaths of a firefight. Treat the "insurgents" like we did those in Germany after WW II, instead of arresting and putting them in jail.

[DoughtyOne]

It's a hoot to see such utter nonsense from the likes of Buckley. The fact, and it is an undeniable fact, that Iraq didn't absolutely implode over this Mosque bombing, is proof positive that we ARE winning. Yes, there was a violent reaction. The Iraqis and the US got it under control right away. In the old days this would have caused a holy war the likes of which we'd be observing for years.

I've never seen a rag tag group so determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Buckley thus alligns himself with the likes of Teddy, John, Hillary and Jane. William, get a grip.

[Dr. Frank fan]

But it sounds as if in your mind success is guaranteed and that it's only a matter of time if I read you correctly.

No, I don't believe success is "guaranteed". There's a difference between what is probable and what is "guaranteed". And yes, I do believe success is probable (and, a matter of time), as long as we don't decide to give up because of our short-attention-span/instant-gratification tendencies.

Here's a clue: Germany and Japan weren't Islamic.

Thanks for the news flash.

Yes, Iraq is an Islamic culture. That's a difference. I'd even agree, a big difference.

And?

[Fruitbat]

I think you should have just answered your own question, "And?", with the prior statement.

I also agree that there's a large degree of probability in "success." But we just don't know. To say that the Muslim world is volatile is akin to saying that Asia is large.

We don't know what the future holds. There's been a lot of initial progress, but there are some big questions too. As an example, why is Saddam being allowed to control his trial? They've allowed that to be turned into a media circus when IMO we should have been seeing the bottom of his shoes from a gallows by now. Perhaps exagerating a bit, but it's a circus. And just as the outcome of the Palestinian elections, we just don't know what will happen.

Once there's a free country in the muslim world, and this is entirely key, that allows Christians, Jews, and other religious contingents, to live in peace and with all civil and human rights, a concept that runs entirely counter to the Koran, then I'll be a much bigger believer.